Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated.

Go Back   Australian Ford Forums > General Topics > The Pub

The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 26-01-2011, 09:16 AM   #31
SSD-85
Donating Member
Donating Member1
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukeyson
Very interesting there, i tried a few tanks of E10 in my XR8 and there was no decline in power but i am finding a big change to the economy, i get about 90-100kms less out of a tank.
I agree with it being surprising. I was expecting a large drop in economy.
But in saying that, about 99% of my driving is cruise control on the highway at 100kmh. With a very consistent 9L/100km on E10. I would imagine if more urban driving were involved it would be a different story.
SSD-85 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 26-01-2011, 11:25 AM   #32
colinl
Regular Member
 
colinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Caboolture
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebxr8240
Aircraft have always had strict fuel usage...
I guess the colder conditions, extreme temp variation and being hygroscopic would be one major reason...
Water in fuel will freeze...
We have to find an alternative !! We can't have our heads in the sand ..
I'm sure engineers etc can work there way around issues..
It's the older cars which get left behind...
Maybe they want it that way??
Seems adding a minute amount of oil slows corrosion ??
Icing in the fuel are the main concerns with aircraft I think.

You're right, we do need to change. E85 will be a much better option once we have a wider usage and more vehicles designed for it.

The marine industry doesn't like it because of the hygroscopic nature of the fuel. This can be an issue especially with octane drop. Marine engines spend a lot of time at high revs and loads, much more than normal cars. This coupled with the use of very clean direct injected two strokes can see preignition and detonation problems. One of the other disadvantages is the enclosed engines of stern drive and inboards. The engine space can get a little too warm and the ethanol fuels tend to cause vapour lock.

OPE suffers much of the same problems. Their engines are run under harsh conditions, and according to a study done by Orbital POE engines run on e10 suffer considerable more wear.

While I'm on that subject, if anyone wants to have a look at a wide range of engine and fuel technology papers the training and publication page on
Orbital's web site is worth a look. These guys are the ones that developed the DFI systems used by Mercury (optimax), Aprilia, and a number of other manufacturers. They are Australian, but have their fingers in a lot of international stuff.

Anyway, as you said, engineers will nut out the issues. There will be a cost to this, and we will pay it, but what do you do, everything has a price and if it is something you want, you just suck it up and pay
__________________
Cheers
Col
colinl is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 26-01-2011, 02:30 PM   #33
aussie muscle
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
aussie muscle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by colinl
He did a tune on his partners car and within a short period of time realised he was totally smashed and had to go home. He reckons his head was killing him the next day.
Carbon Monoxide poisoning?
__________________
My ride: 2007 Falcon Ute BF XR8 Orange, MTO.
aussie muscle is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 26-01-2011, 03:23 PM   #34
colinl
Regular Member
 
colinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Caboolture
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie muscle
Carbon Monoxide poisoning?
I'm not sure CO poisoning makes you feel ****ed? I know that he was fairly sure that it was the unburnt ethanol, just because of the immediate effects on him and the headache the next day. It sounds OK to me, the vaporised alcohol would be transferred via the lungs to the blood stream pretty efficiently. It's not something you have to believe, I just thought it was worth mentioning in the context of the thread. No doubt as more e85 becomes more widely used we will find out if it is a concern or not.
__________________
Cheers
Col
colinl is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 26-01-2011, 03:52 PM   #35
Neale
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Neale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,481
Default

I know people that have old fibreglass boats that have used E10, parked the boat in the shed for the winter & come back to find that any E10 that has come in contact with the fibreglass has eaten it away. They have now come up with better fibreglass, but still doesnt sound good.

I think the main problem with ethanol is that like stated in the first statement, is that it absorbs water!!! so imagine the petrol has been sitting in the tanks at the petrol station for a little while with some condensation in the tank. The fuel then absorbs the water. Then you have water going through the motor. Never a good thing.
Neale is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 26-01-2011, 04:58 PM   #36
flappist
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madmelon
Sorry but I believe that's absolute rubbish. I've been responsible for operation of a high performance motorbike engine on a dyno for the last 18 months and during the month we tested E85, there was no raw fuel coming from the exhaust at all, despite testing both ridiculously rich and lean and at all operating conditions. Yes it smells different to a regular exhaust, most likely due to a different compound being present but its fairly obvious the smell isn't straight ethanol.

Exhaust fumes have the potential to give you a headache if you breathe them in, regardless of fuel. At no point during our testing did anyone in or near the dyno come under the effects of alcohol due to the exhaust.
So what were their BAC readings and how did you test it?
flappist is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 26-01-2011, 05:02 PM   #37
colinl
Regular Member
 
colinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Caboolture
Posts: 138
Default

I would think that epoxy resin would be fine with e10, polyester resin not so good. The trouble is that most products are polyester resin based as it is cheaper.

There are a lot of old bikes that use fibreglass fuel tanks too, and the owners may not understand the consequences of using e10. These two of mine had fibreglass tanks.





In late model cars e10 isn't much of an issue.
__________________
Cheers
Col
colinl is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 26-01-2011, 06:35 PM   #38
irish2
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpd80
I draw a line at 1988 for the 99th percentile of the motor vehicle population and
I proposed E5 because those older EFI vehicles are able to use it without issue.
Going back 23 years, the average life expectancy of a vehicle is approx. 17 years
and the oldest common vehicle on the roads today are EB-ED and VP-VR.

Cars older than 1998 are in the hands of enthusiasts who can make their own
decisions on modifications, we're all adults here and our hobby costs money.

Carbys appeared on Australian sold cars as late as 1993. It is not that it just affects the carbies either. Any fuel lines, petrol regulators, and filler necks up until about 2000, are not designed for contact with ethanol.

I'm all for having ethanol options at the pumps but there is no need to mandate the use of it!
irish2 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 02:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Other than what is legally copyrighted by the respective owners, this site is copyright www.fordforums.com.au
Positive SSL